Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@true402.dev/mcp-server

@true402.dev/mcp-server

by true402
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

address_safety_ethereum

Structural safety profile for ANY Ethereum address — an EOA or an arbitrary contract — before an agent sends funds to it, approves it, or calls it.

Instructions

Structural safety profile for ANY Ethereum address — an EOA or an arbitrary contract — before an agent sends funds to it, approves it, or calls it. Returns contract-vs-EOA, ETH + USDC balance, tx-count (activity), and for contracts: whether it is a recognised ERC-20, ownership state, a mint() selector, and whether it is an EIP-1967 upgradeable proxy (its logic can be swapped after you trust it). Coarse risk band + flags. On-chain reads only — no API key. POST { address }. Unpaid: free while the caller's IP has free-trial calls left that day (a small daily allowance shared across the trial stalls, no wallet); otherwise returns 402. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.005 USD (fixed).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "address_safety_ethereum"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain to check; only 'ethereum' is supported on this endpoint (default)
addressYesAny address (0x…) on Ethereum — an EOA or a contract

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses on-chain-only reads, no API key needed, POST body shape, and the complete payment model (free-trial allowance, 402 response, x402/USDC-on-Base settlement requiring a funded wallet, fixed $0.005 price). It also enumerates what is and isn't detected (mint() selector, EIP-1967 proxy), which is exactly the context an agent needs to trust the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and use conditions are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every clause (returns list, payment mechanics, price) earns its place by affecting invocation. The payment paragraph is dense and slightly verbose, which keeps it from a 5, but it is not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must (and does) describe return values in detail: contract-vs-EOA, ETH+USDC balance, tx-count, ERC-20 recognition, ownership, mint selector, proxy status, plus risk band and flags. Combined with the full payment/error behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (chain and address) are already fully documented in the schema, including that only 'ethereum' is supported. The description's 'POST { address }' adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: a 'structural safety profile for ANY Ethereum address (EOA or contract)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like address_safety (chain-agnostic), address_safety_bsc, and token_safety_ethereum by naming the returned artifacts (contract-vs-EOA, balances, proxy status) that are specific to this check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit triggering context: use it 'before an agent sends funds to it, approves it, or calls it'. That is a clear when-to-use. However, it never names an alternative tool or the condition that would route the agent to address_safety or a token_* sibling instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools